I'm sorry I made a mistake the subnet between catalyst4006 and customer's firewall is
10.10.1.213/30, Catalyst4006's interface address is 10.10.1.213, firewall's interface
address is 10.10.1.214.
Sorry.
Joe
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:24 , Tony Rall [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
On Monday,
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Alex Rubenstein:
b) customer is exercising the right not to renew the business agreement,
and is leaving NAC voluntarily.
The customer probably has a different opinion on this particular
topic, doesn't he?
No. This is a clear situation
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:44:43AM -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote:
Hi,
As far as other ISPs helping out in the form of a letter to the court,
what do you need beyond a well, this is one more route we need to carry
that we shouldn't have to and How do I know how to properly report abuse
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:43:41AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Hi,
As for the netblock: I just did a quick scan and here is what I found:
64.21.0.0/17 *[BGP/170] 3d 17:52:24, MED 64, localpref 210
AS path: 6320 8001 I
64.21.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 3d
Michel Py wrote:
In short: drop the monkey on ARIN's back. The issue that
non-portable blocks are indeed non-portable is ARIN's to
deal with, and partly why we are giving money to them.
Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
I wonder why ARIN, or even more importantly, ICANN has
not jumped all over
Hi Joe,
It would be good to know the type (and software version) of firewall as it
could be the firewall and not the switch that's the problem. For instance,
there's a known bug with checkpoint and NAT where automatic arp entries
disappear.
If you can ping it all from the catalyst but not from
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
No. This is a clear situation where the customer has canceled his service
with us in writing.
Ok, important point.
b) In regards to your passage, because the customer just appears to be
another multi-homed customer of yours, this is a key point.
my sister called me last night to tell me that she was unable
to receive
mail from southwest airlines, and that her e-ticket was in
limbo for some
flight somewhere. i checked and sure enough southwest
airlines has sent
me three or messages per day that i don't want, for most days
out
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue (Can I take my cell
number with me?), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose
these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing
table efficiency.
No, this is not about taking a phone
None of this would be an issue, if abuse desks were:
1. Responsive
2. Responsible
3. Empowered
4. Accountable
Today, they are none of the above.
A lot of people on this list are opposed to increasing
government regulation of the Internet industry.
But how would you feel about a law
When a provider hosts a phishing site for _weeks on end_ and does
_nothing_ despite being notified repeatedly, sometimes a blacklist is
the
only cluebat strong enough to get through the provider's thick skull.
If they are notified that they are an
accessory to a crime and do not take any
Can we stop the analogies before they begin.
This is not the PSTN, comparing it to the PSTN appears to be where the court is
going wrong. This is the Internet.
It is internationally accepted policy that IP space is issued under a kind of
license that does not give ownership or
Johnny Eriksson wrote:
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue (Can I take my cell
number with me?), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose
these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing
table efficiency.
No, this is not
Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it is often great sport to poke at MS, did you consider that
this might have nothing to do with classfullness or CIDR? I believe
you will find that 0 -1 are invalid for whatever netmask the
windows stack is given.
I think you may be confused about
Alex,
I think one avenue of approach will be to see if ARIN would grant you
another contiguous block to replace not just what the customer got but the
entire block they have polluted.
If they will not, as I suspect, then you can show that the TRO while
upholding the status quo is causing you
Joe Shen wrote:
I'm sorry I made a mistake the subnet between catalyst4006 and
customer's firewall is
10.10.1.213/30, Catalyst4006's interface address is 10.10.1.213,
firewall's interface
address is 10.10.1.214.
Have you tried enabling a monitor port on the Cat4k and sniffing what
exactly is
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Peter Corlett wrote:
Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it is often great sport to poke at MS, did you consider that
this might have nothing to do with classfullness or CIDR? I believe
you will find that 0 -1 are invalid for whatever netmask the
windows
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
c) In regards to the tail-end of your mail, what you propose (the
temporary reassignment of space to an ex-customer) is in (as I intepret
ARIN policy) direct contradiction and violation of ARIN policy. If this
policy were to stand, what prevents
VJB Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:33:28 -0400
VJB From: Vincent J. Bono
VJB I think one avenue of approach will be to see if ARIN would
VJB grant you another contiguous block to replace not just what
VJB the customer got but the entire block they have polluted.
I thought of that, too. However,
SB Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:34:03 +0200
SB From: Sabri Berisha
[ editted ]
SB As for the netblock: I just did a quick scan and here is what
SB I found:
SB I'm not sure wether or not 64.21.1.0/24 is the disputed
SB netblock, but this seems the only more specific without
SB AS8001 in the path.
JL Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:08:03 -0400 (EDT)
JL From: Jon Lewis
JL If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know.
I don't know the rogue netblock, but
http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgirange.exe?ASN=8001
may prove insightful. I believe there are people who track
Joe,
If you are using NAT 0 you need to have a static translation enabled.
Otherwise when the machine first comes up it arp's which creates an xlate
entry on the PIX which times out when the inactivity timer runs out.
This causes behavior similar to what you are experiencing
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue (Can I take my cell
number with me?), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose
these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing
table efficiency.
No, this is not about taking a phone number. This is about a someone
moving to a
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:47:42AM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:44 AM, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Of course, if you just happen to uphold INTERNET STANDARDS and only
accept routes from where they should originate, I'll buy you a drink
at the next NANOG for being
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Bob Snyder wrote:
Of course, since you're doing this based on email that NAC sent, who has
been enjoined from directly or indirectly preventing the customer from
using their IP space, you may be opening NAC up to further liability.
Of course, using this line of
meanwhile your sister has the hassle of getting southwest to send that
fax, or changing her travel plans. i'm sure glad you're not running my
isp.
if i were running your isp, paying customers would get to choose.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
JL Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:08:03 -0400 (EDT)
JL From: Jon Lewis
JL If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know.
I don't know the rogue netblock, but
http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgirange.exe?ASN=8001
More likely
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 09:38:12PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
What you really should try is to have ARIN provide friend of the court
brief and to explain to judge policies and rules in regards to ip space,
so you need to have your laywer get in touch with ARIN's lawyer. You can
VJB From: Vincent J. Bono
VJB I think one avenue of approach will be to see if
VJB ARIN would grant you another contiguous block to
VJB replace not just what the customer got but the
VJB entire block they have polluted.
Edward B. Dreger
I thought of that, too. However, that would require
NAC
william(at)elan.net
I've suspicions this maybe Pegasus Web Technologies (AS25653),
Good catch William!
I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced litigator,
the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either intervene
formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus. ARIN will be striving to
educate the court to understand more accurately the legal and policy
Since all NSP's, ISP's, ALEC's, BLEC's and CLEC's
adhere to this accepted behavior and there are more
than 100 I blieve the court would be on the side of
the plaintiff under the 3rd amendment of the
constitution.
It is my understanding that doing otherwise will cause
an administrative nightmare
Worse case scenario. I think this is a bad precedent,
and poor judgement on the part of the defendent ISP,
for the small number block they have. The long term
potential harm could result in small ISP's not being
able to get number blocks thus making it more
difficult for small companies to
The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision, did anyone
actually think they would have a clue?
Here is the solution:
Black ball the /24 that the customer is taking with them. Black hole
any AS that announces that /24 'illegally'. The courts don't need to
follow the RFC or
On Jun 29, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Ray Plzak wrote:
I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced
litigator,
the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either
intervene
formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus. ARIN will be
striving to
educate the court to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:45:40 -0400, Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision, did anyone
actually think they would have a clue?
Here is the solution:
Perhaps before proposing a solution we should make sure that all the facts
are
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Matthew Crocker wrote:
The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision, did anyone
actually think they would have a clue?
Actually, after reading most of the papers which Richard just made available
at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ I don't see that
On Jun 29, 2004, at 9:28 AM, Bob Snyder wrote:
Of course, since you're doing this based on email that NAC sent, who
has
been enjoined from directly or indirectly preventing the customer
from
using their IP space, you may be opening NAC up to further liability.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:11:08AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Actually, after reading most of the papers which Richard just made available
at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ I don't see that court made an
incorrect decision (it however should have been more clear enough on
Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the
space? The court order doesn't apply to ARIN, or the new
provider. I'd say it would be a violation of the agreement, but
I'm not a lawyer. Just a thought.
-M
--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:15:33PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Black holing is a drastic step but I think decisive action needs to be
taken the Internet at large to protect the routing table. I know I
would *love* to gain ownership of some of my space I have from Sprint.
I'm too lazy
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
NAC had nothing to do with this. I have a long history in this and
other forums of promoting aggregation, with the notable exception of
multi-homed *TRANSIT CUSTOMERS* announcing routes via BGP. Suggesting
providers not accept prefixes which
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:27:43 -0400, Hannigan, Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the
space?
They would not be legaly obligated to do so by the current TRO. However
note this is supposedly a temporay use of IP space. Some
On Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 12:15:33PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
From my understanding the customer has their own IP space allocated by
ARIN and has had that space for over a year. They have already had
adequate time to transition to their own space. The Internet routing
table should not
The TRO reads to me along the lines that the customer wants protections from
increased charges and fees (anything above normal rates) while they are able to
move their equipment away from the co-located facilities. They do not wish to
incur expenses from NAC for access to the facilities. I see
The old legal trick of moving a case from Federal Court to a state court, is a
common legal tactic where friendly judges and judge shopping can take place (
Think the SCO action against IBM over the Unix/Linux debacle)
It's not a trick - the requirements for removal jurisdiction within the
If you read through
http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/plantiff-affidavit1.pdf you'll
see that NAC was blackmailing their client because they knew they
could not quickly move out
I think that argument is close to being bogus. The agreement doesn't
say that they have to be out in 45 days:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:27:43 -0400 Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the
space? The court order doesn't apply to ARIN, or the new
provider. I'd say it would be a violation of the agreement, but
I'm not a lawyer.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Simon Lockhart wrote:
1) They say that they are hindered in their renumbering by not being able
to get a large enough block of addresses from ARIN (I forget the exact
wording). Does this mean that NAC were lax with their IP allocation policy
and let the customer have
Bravo.
- ferg
-- Ray Plzak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced
litigator, the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to
either intervene formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus.
ARIN will be striving to educate the court
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Richard Welty wrote:
i suspect this will turn out to be a non-issue, even of the new provider
routes the blocks and nac.net strictly obeys the requirements of the
TRO. the blocks broken out of the aggregates are probably (i
haven't looked) likely to be dropped by filters
Steve Linford wrote:
The statement by Ben Browning: I know several businesses who have,
and a great many people who have blocked UUNet space from sending
them email ... by using ... the SBL is false, the SBL has never
blocked UUNet/MCI IP space that wasn't directly in the control of
spammers. If
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 01:14:05PM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:27:43 -0400 Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the
space? The court order doesn't apply to ARIN, or the new
provider. I'd say
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, how do your filters tell the difference between these broken out
NAC routes through a new provider and multihomed customer routes with the
primary provider's connection down?
i've played this game from the
In an attempt to add a little more light than heat to this
issue, let me add my .02 Euros. I am not a lawyer although I've had to
defend myself in court a few times, so I do know a few things.
This is a temporary restraining order. These are
commonly issued "ex parte" meaning at the request
On Jun 29, 2004, at 1:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, how do your filters tell the difference between these broken out
NAC routes through a new provider and multihomed customer routes
with the
primary provider's
Mark,
I suspect they confused 'mega' with 'kilo'.
They mention 60 megawatts of power. It seems to me that the focus
shouldn't be on the easy task of renumbering a /24 in 85 days (is it
really just a /24?), but on moving the servers :-)
There is mention of increased power charges (up to
Alex,
Not being a lawyer, this is not a legal opinion, but my opinion
is: What state court issued the TRO. A TRO usually is a legal
technique to allow a condition to continue or not continue until a
court of competent jurisdiction can "review" the issues.
Since the addresses are not "owned"
quite frankly, looking at the TRO (thanks Richard for posting them here), UCI has
requested permission to use Prior UCI Addresses being part of NAC, until September
1st, 2004. i am failing to see the problem with this TRO, given that customer is
simply requesting relief guarantees that their
This host appears to be resending nanog posts? :
Received: from e500smtp01.nga.mil(164.214.6.120) by relay5.nga.mil via smap
(V5.5) id xma020150; Tue, 29 Jun 04 10:25:13 -0400
Originally received yesterday sometime...
-- Forwarded message --
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi James,
i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are
executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The
customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to
or unwilling to move out in the lengthy period
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|It's also important that one avoid:
|
|* The faulty assumption there is but one problem
|
|
| Here's an interesting example that I came across
| several years ago. It was in an office with lots
| of PCs plugged into RJ45
It has been pointed out to me that other people arent seeing the dups, that
these are being resent directly to my address and that its a MIL host doing it.
Perhaps I dropped phrases about terrorism or porn into my posts and I'm now
being targeted by eschelon ;-O
Steve (hiding in basement
From Ben Browning, received 29/6/04, 9:56 am -0700 (GMT):
Steve Linford wrote:
The statement by Ben Browning: I know several businesses who have,
and a great many people who have blocked UUNet space from sending
them email ... by using ... the SBL is false, the SBL has never
blocked UUNet/MCI
Hi,
Hi James,
i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing
unreasonable and are executing cancellation clauses in there
contract which are pretty standard. The customer's had plenty
of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to or
unwilling to move out in the
--- Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Einstein taught as that even the simple act of
observation influences
our surroundings. Wouldn't it make sense to try to
leverage this
influence such that the future is shaped more to our
liking, however
small the change may be?
joe mcguckin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect they confused 'mega' with 'kilo'.
No, it's just the unit got mangled through sloppy usage. It was
written as 60 megawatt hours, i.e. 60,000 kWh of energy.
Any ISP that drew 60MW would probably be visible from space :)
--
PGP key ID E85DC776 -
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Brad Passwaters wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:07:32 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi James,
i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are
executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty
So you think it's futile to try to get software vendors to improve their
products. I suppose I can go along with that to a certain degree. But how
can you expect end-users to work around the brokenness in the software they
use? This seems both unfair and futile.
at my aforementioned sister's
Hi James,
i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are
executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The
customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to
or unwilling to move out in the
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they are notified that they are an
accessory to a crime and do not take any
action, then doesn't this make the provider
liable to criminal charges?
You would think it would. But who bothers to prosecute? No one.
Did you really inform the
OK... I'll take the risk here...
These guys look to be gross address polluters -- Here's what I found:
1. Pegasus Web Technologies is listed as AS25653 (ARIN whois)
2. route-views.oregon-ix.net has the following to say about prefixes
with origin in AS25653 (only the first listed
These guys look to be gross address polluters -- Here's what I found:
* 64.21.40.0/24209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i
hmmm notice that all of these /24's are from ^_8001_ which peers with
route-views.oregon-ix.net which may from time to time include internal
iBGP
* Alex Yuriev wrote:
Judge grants the TRO.
Defendant waves arms on nanog-l.
Moral -
When a legal system is involved, use the legal system, not the
nanog-l. The former provides provides ample of opportunities to
deal with the issues, while the later only
william(at)elan.net wrote:
I've suspicions this maybe Pegasus Web Technologies (AS25653),
Michel Py wrote:
Good catch William!
Dan Hollis wrote:
This pegasus? http://www.spews.org/html/S2649.html
Yeah.
Michel.
On 29-jun-04, at 22:53, David Barak wrote:
Einstein taught as that even the simple act of
observation influences our surroundings. Wouldn't it make sense to
try to
leverage this influence such that the future is shaped more to our
liking, however small the change may be?
nitpick: it wasn't
On 30-jun-04, at 1:47, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community,
strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that
forces an
ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC,
to be
able to use IP Space allocated to
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 07:47:54PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community,
strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that forces an
ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC, to be
able to
--- Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The principle has been analogized to describe
larger
systems and items, and is a useful but not always
completely accurate metaphor. It is entirely
possible
to observe some things without affecting them.
Is it? If I want to look at
DB Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
DB From: David Barak
DB I've gotta say - this is a new one for me. I'm used
[ snip ]
DB --- Jason Silverglate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find this part interesting and ironic. See: Can a customer
take... thread.
Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet -
What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community,
strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that forces an
ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC, to be
able to use IP Space allocated to NAC. In other words, I am asking people
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
:
:
: What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community,
: strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that forces an
: ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC, to be
: able to use IP Space
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Crist Clark wrote:
Also can one think of other circumstances where non-portable IPs should
become portable without reallocation through ARIN? Say, *poof*, ISP
goes out of business _very_ suddenly with no one buying up its assets
and taking over its operations quickly.
Eddy,
DB --- Jason Silverglate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edward B. Dreger wrote:
I find this part interesting and ironic. See: Can
a customer take... thread.
I can clearly see the ironic part of it, but would you mind developing
what the interesting part is? I fail to see it.
In other
William Leibzon wrote:
Not an ARIN example but when KPNQwest went out of business,
the situation was as you desribe and it would have been
difficult to everybody to quickly renumber so their PA
assigned customer ip blocks with assistance of RIPE became
PI blocks (at least this is how I
85 matches
Mail list logo
